B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
T Vance wrote:
For example (not taken from your personal experience but offered as a generic encounter):
LEO asks- "Can I see your ID?"
This is really a question but most folks "assume" it is an order simply because of who is asking.
LEO says- "Wait while I write you for trespass."
Again, most folks would assume that the officer has already enough evidence of trespass or he/she would not be writing it up. Allowing that to happen (because it is an authority figure doing it) without questioning it would mean the person allows themselves to be guilty... at least right at that moment... and fighting it later will be much more difficult than questioning it right then.
So it is a mind game being played hoping the one being questioned will fall right into being led down a path of assumption ending in being arrested/cited for something extremely difficult to prove otherwise later.
In short, it is a game of asking questions that are known will be assumed to be orders just because the one asking the questions is an authority figure... ie.. a police officer.
The good thing is that folks like you who know the law and counter questions (that are cloaked in the unspoken assumption of being orders from an authority figure.. ie.. a police officer) with questions that require answers directly from the law and not the officer himself/herself stop the "game".
Example:
LEO asks- "Can I see your ID?"
Again, this is just a question.
I reply- "Am I required to show you my ID?"
That requires an answer directly from the laws governing the situation at hand regardless of what the individual officer thinks or how he/she wants the interview to go. That "stops" the "game".
I had a conversation with an officer a while back where I was being given the officer's unfavorable opinion of open carry. The officer was in uniform in a place where there were other uninvolved people around listening intently.
The uniform alone carried the unspoken message that someone in authority didn't like ordinary folks to openly carry guns around. Everyone heard that unspoken message... myself included... some folks heard it even if only on a subconscious level.
When I had a chance I said in a voice that carried to everyone who was listening... and everyone was listening carefully hoping to hear me get my rear chewed:
"Open carry in Michigan is legal............... isn't it?"
And he replied "Yes."
Everyone heard him say "Yes."
So everyone heard someone in uniform, someone in authority, say that open carry is legal. Which countered all of his "opinions".
It is a mind game being played to gain advantage by some officers who understand that most folks consider a question from someone in uniform as the same as an "order".
So in your situation you knew the law and, more importantly, didn't play the "game" but kept the encounter focused upon the law.
T Vance wrote:
The officers allowed you (and will allow any other person in a situation where confronted by an authority figure) to assume you MUST answer/comply with their requests simply because they are the authority figure.Bikenut wrote:Could you pleaseclarify what you mean in my situation? I'm not following you.What I found .... "interesting" ... is that the officers were playing a little game of trying to help the person of interest (T Vance in this case) not only find something to be guilty of but to also help them find evidence of guilt.............. all by allowing the one being questioned to assume something was being said that wasn't, and had never actually been, said.
For example (not taken from your personal experience but offered as a generic encounter):
LEO asks- "Can I see your ID?"
This is really a question but most folks "assume" it is an order simply because of who is asking.
LEO says- "Wait while I write you for trespass."
Again, most folks would assume that the officer has already enough evidence of trespass or he/she would not be writing it up. Allowing that to happen (because it is an authority figure doing it) without questioning it would mean the person allows themselves to be guilty... at least right at that moment... and fighting it later will be much more difficult than questioning it right then.
So it is a mind game being played hoping the one being questioned will fall right into being led down a path of assumption ending in being arrested/cited for something extremely difficult to prove otherwise later.
In short, it is a game of asking questions that are known will be assumed to be orders just because the one asking the questions is an authority figure... ie.. a police officer.
The good thing is that folks like you who know the law and counter questions (that are cloaked in the unspoken assumption of being orders from an authority figure.. ie.. a police officer) with questions that require answers directly from the law and not the officer himself/herself stop the "game".
Example:
LEO asks- "Can I see your ID?"
Again, this is just a question.
I reply- "Am I required to show you my ID?"
That requires an answer directly from the laws governing the situation at hand regardless of what the individual officer thinks or how he/she wants the interview to go. That "stops" the "game".
I had a conversation with an officer a while back where I was being given the officer's unfavorable opinion of open carry. The officer was in uniform in a place where there were other uninvolved people around listening intently.
The uniform alone carried the unspoken message that someone in authority didn't like ordinary folks to openly carry guns around. Everyone heard that unspoken message... myself included... some folks heard it even if only on a subconscious level.
When I had a chance I said in a voice that carried to everyone who was listening... and everyone was listening carefully hoping to hear me get my rear chewed:
"Open carry in Michigan is legal............... isn't it?"
And he replied "Yes."
Everyone heard him say "Yes."
So everyone heard someone in uniform, someone in authority, say that open carry is legal. Which countered all of his "opinions".
It is a mind game being played to gain advantage by some officers who understand that most folks consider a question from someone in uniform as the same as an "order".
So in your situation you knew the law and, more importantly, didn't play the "game" but kept the encounter focused upon the law.